State v. Feliciano

149 Hawai‘i 365

489 P.3d 1277

STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Allan Michael G. FELICIANO, aka Allan M. Gamon Feliciano, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

SCWC-17-0000581

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

JUNE 29, 2021

William H. Jameson, Jr., for petitioner

Charles E. Murray III, for respondent

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, WILSON, AND EDDINS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J.

I. Introduction

Michael G. Feliciano ("Feliciano") appeals his jury conviction in the Family Court of the Third Circuit ("family court") for abuse of family or household member. Feliciano allegedly struck the complaining witness (the "CW"), his wife, in the face in the early morning hours of January 14, 2017.

Before trial, the State of Hawai‘i ("the State") filed a notice of intent to use evidence of Feliciano's "prior bad acts," seeking to introduce a 2016 incident in which Feliciano allegedly pushed the CW out of a chair ("chair incident"). The State asserted the chair incident was relevant because: (1) it contributed to the CW's medical use of marijuana; (2) Feliciano indicated his intent to raise CW's marijuana use the night of January 13, 2017; (3) it explained the CW's medical marijuana use; and (4) it would rebut Feliciano's expected defenses. The family court ruled the State could introduce the chair incident "[i]f the door is opened" by Feliciano through evidence of the CW's marijuana use.

During direct examination, the CW testified she used medical marijuana to treat her chronic back pain. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked about her marijuana use and the couple's prior six-month separation, but did not ask why the couple had separated. Feliciano later testified that the couple's relationship began to deteriorate after the CW "started going heavy on marijuana usage" and that the CW voluntarily left their home in February 2016. During his cross-examination, the family court overruled defense counsel's objection to the State asking Feliciano about the chair incident, ruling that Feliciano had "[o]pened the door."

The family court then allowed the CW to testify as a rebuttal witness regarding the chair incident because the "defendant testified on the relationship between the parties by saying she used drugs or marijuana and that -- well, the relationship was raised and the inference also was left that she moved out for different reasons." The family court gave limiting instructions to the jury that the chair incident could only be considered as to the relationship between Feliciano and the CW as well as to Feliciano's motive.

On appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA"), Feliciano argued the family court abused its discretion in admitting the chair incident evidence and that the family court's limiting instructions did not mitigate the prejudicial effect of the evidence.

In its August 31, 2020 memorandum opinion, the ICA majority rejected Feliciano's arguments. State v. Feliciano, CAAP-17-0000581, 2020 WL 5111230 (App. Aug. 31, 2020) (mem.). The ICA majority ruled: (1) the family court properly admitted the chair incident evidence under the "opening the door" doctrine because Feliciano offered evidence that could be false or misleading in isolation; (2) the chair incident evidence passed muster under Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence ("HRE") Rules 404(b) and 403 (1980); and (3) the family court's limiting instructions mitigated any unfair prejudice resulting from the chair incident evidence. Judge Leonard dissented.

We hold the ICA erred by ruling Feliciano "opened the door" to the chair incident evidence. We have not adopted the "opening the door" doctrine and, in any event, Feliciano did not first introduce inadmissible evidence or evidence that was false or misleading in isolation. We also hold the ICA erred by ruling the chair incident evidence admissible under HRE Rule 404(b). Moreover, even if the chair incident evidence had otherwise been admissible, it should have excluded by HRE Rule 403. We further hold the family court's limiting instructions failed to mitigate the prejudicial impact of the chair incident evidence. Finally, we hold that the improper admission of the chair incident evidence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hence, we vacate the ICA's September 28, 2020 judgment on appeal and the family court's June 2, 2017 judgment, and we remand this case to the family court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II. Background

A. Factual background

Feliciano and the CW were married around 2012,¹ and owned a house together in Kona, Hawai‘i. Feliciano worked as a porter and bartender. He was also an ammo specialist and sergeant in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard, which he had entered approximately eleven years earlier. Feliciano is five feet six inches tall and weighs 170 pounds, and the CW is five feet tall and weighs 105 pounds.

B. Procedural background

1. Family court proceedings

a. Pre-trial

On February 2, 2017, the State charged Feliciano via complaint with abuse of a family or household member, in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 709-906(1) (Supp. 2016) of the CW "[o]n or about the 13th day of January, 2017[.]"² Feliciano indicated his defenses would be a lack of the requisite state of mind and self-defense.

Before trial, the State filed a notice of intent to use evidence of Feliciano's "prior bad act" at trial, specifically of "[f]acts and [c]ircumstances documented in police report C17001634 and in interviews with [the CW] detailing an incident in 2016 in which [Feliciano] pushed [the CW] out of a chair." The State indicated its intent to introduce this evidence "pursuant to Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence Rule 404 to show state of mind (victim; witnesses; and Defendant) motive, intent, plan, absence of mistake, knowledge, modus operandi, and/or other R. 404 purposes." The State argued: (1) the chair incident contributed to the CW's medical marijuana use; (2) Feliciano had indicated his intent to raise the issue of the CW's marijuana use on the night of January 13, 2017; (3) the chair incident was necessary to explain the CW's medical marijuana use; and (4) the chair incident was also relevant to rebut Feliciano's expected defenses of ignorance or mistake as well as self-defense regarding the initial aggressor issue. Feliciano opposed and also filed a motion in limine to exclude any such evidence.

The family court³ ruled the chair incident would be admitted if Feliciano "opened the door," stating:

[Deputy prosecuting attorney ("DPA")]: -- far as the prior bad acts, the State is just trying to reserve its ability to bring up a prior incident between the defendant and the complainant with regard --

....

THE COURT: ....

So you talking about prior actions of the defendant may be relevant?

[DPA]: If that --

THE COURT: If the –

[DPA]: -- her marijuana usage is brought up.

THE COURT: If the door is opened.

[DPA]: Yes.

THE COURT: So well to that extent, if the motion in limine is prohibiting that, motion is denied.

Trial then began.

b. Jury trial

i. Feliciano's opening statement

During Feliciano's opening statement, the deputy public defender ("DPD") described the CW as being "under the influence of various substances" and "behaving aggressively" on January 13, 2017, Feliciano's actions as "justified," and the couple's relationship as "rocky."

ii. The CW's testimony

The State called the CW as its first witness, who testified as follows.

On the evening of January 13, 2017, the CW and Feliciano had a get-together with friends at their home. Feliciano was "drinking the whole time"; the CW did not know how much alcohol Feliciano consumed. The CW did not drink alcohol that evening, but she used marijuana. She had a valid medical marijuana license for chronic back pain.

At some point during the evening, "some roughhousing" broke out between two of the male guests and Feliciano became involved. The CW intervened to calm Feliciano down to keep him from fighting. Feliciano told her to "get out of his way[,]" while grabbing and twisting her wrists. She then went inside the house, turned off the lights, pulled out the pull-out couch bed in the living room, and fell asleep alone with her clothes on.

In the early morning hours of January 14, 2017, Feliciano pulled the CW off of the couch bed. She saw one of Feliciano's friends also sleeping on the couch bed with his clothes on. Feliciano told her to "get [her] ass out of bed" and asked "what the heck was [she] doing sleeping with his friend." She responded that "[she] didn't wanna go and sleep in the room with him, in the same bed, and [she] told him to take his friend with him ‘cause [she] was sleeping on the couch first." Feliciano, who appeared to be under the influence of alcohol, "got mad at [her]." He said, "Oh, why you don't wanna come sleep in the room with me, ‘cause I hurt you? You don't know what hurting is. You don't know what abuse is. I'll show you."

Feliciano then punched the left side of the CW's face with his right fist. She had her arms down at her side when Feliciano struck her; she blacked out and fell to the ground.⁴

When she came to, she was lying on the ground and Feliciano was angrily standing over her. The CW went into the bathroom and took pictures of her face, and when she went back to the living room, the friend was gone. She did not call the police and went back to sleep.

The next morning, the CW went to get a massage. Feliciano texted, asking if he had hit her the night before, stating that if he had, he was sorry.⁵ She did not respond. Approximately four days after Feliciano struck her, the CW went to the police station, where she had three photographs of her face taken.⁶ She then went to the family court to obtain a temporary restraining order ("TRO").⁷

On cross-examination, the DPD asked the CW about her marijuana use, medical marijuana card, and the other prescribed medications she took the night of January 13, 2017.⁸ The DPD also asked about the couple's prior separation, and the CW responded she had been separated from...